Quickleaf
Legend
Quickleaf's Rule: Don't buy any book unless it calls you to buy it! unless I wrote it
The 1998 Handbook of Obesity (Bray, Bouchard, and James) is still considered a seminal text on the matter and is used in the modern treatment of obesity. It adovcates caloric restriction. However it basically concludes that such restricted diets "are known to be poor and not long-lasting." A recent 2005 text, Joslin's Diabetes Mellitus (in a chapter by Jeffery & Terry Flier), re-examines the research on caloric restriction diets as a tool for weight loss, and while they consider it to be an important part of treatment they too conclude about e various caloric restriction diets they examined, "none of these approaches has any proven merit."
That's some pretty damning evidence for the claim that caloric reduction diet work for the obese!
Btw, by obese we're talking BMI in the 30+ range. It's also worth noting that while these studies focused on that range, there do cite failure of caloric restriction diets to sustain weight loss for people in the BMI 25-29 range (technically "overweight" and not "obese").
I'd like to emphasize that fasting in this extreme shuts off the appestat mechanism for feeling hunger, and should only be done by the experienced or with medical supervision.
[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] Anyhow, to get to your challenge, I think you've misunderstood the idea I'm trying to present. Where you see willpower (?) as what makes a diet succeed or fail, I suspect something in the physiology, probably induced by type of food consumed (or environmental toxin...but that's another discussion).
If say I eat fifty pounds of spare ribs, OF COURSE I will gain weight. Likewise if I don't eat food for several weeks. Well, until a point. Indigenous populations (eg. Taubes cites the Pima people of Arizona) suffer obesity while having very little food on their reservation...basically they are / were semi-starving and yet anthropologists observe(d) obesity.
What I'm pointing out is that fat people who calorie restrict or up their exercise for the large part don't successfully keep the weight off. IOW they are *compelled* to either eat more or conserve energy by something physiologically happening in their body which responds as if in a state of semi-starvation.
Maybe you consider that as an exceptional case? My understanding is that is may be quite prevalent in modern societies.
I realize you left room for exceptions. Do you consider obesity as the "most fat people" you describe or as an exception? I ask because the second assertion may actually be false for many people.In general barring wierd disease, fat people eat more than skinny people. When most fat people eat less, they become skinny.
The 1998 Handbook of Obesity (Bray, Bouchard, and James) is still considered a seminal text on the matter and is used in the modern treatment of obesity. It adovcates caloric restriction. However it basically concludes that such restricted diets "are known to be poor and not long-lasting." A recent 2005 text, Joslin's Diabetes Mellitus (in a chapter by Jeffery & Terry Flier), re-examines the research on caloric restriction diets as a tool for weight loss, and while they consider it to be an important part of treatment they too conclude about e various caloric restriction diets they examined, "none of these approaches has any proven merit."
That's some pretty damning evidence for the claim that caloric reduction diet work for the obese!
Btw, by obese we're talking BMI in the 30+ range. It's also worth noting that while these studies focused on that range, there do cite failure of caloric restriction diets to sustain weight loss for people in the BMI 25-29 range (technically "overweight" and not "obese").
Maaaaybe when I was rowing crew and doing competitive karate in college I could put away 4000 calories a day, but 5000 is nuts. I don't think I could will myself to consume that much!I challenge those who are claiming that calories are "bad science" to a practical experiment:
1) Eat 5000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not put on weight.
Actually, I did something similar to this: a 30 day juice fast followed by a 10 day master's cleanse (basically a water/tea/lemonade fast). And I dropped from 196 to 169 (my lowest weight ever, I'm 6'1". I was exceedingly weak at the end of that experiment, probably couldn't have lasted any longer than another week before entering a medically critical condition, but I definitely got closer to God2) Eat 1000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not lost weight.
I'd like to emphasize that fasting in this extreme shuts off the appestat mechanism for feeling hunger, and should only be done by the experienced or with medical supervision.
[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] Anyhow, to get to your challenge, I think you've misunderstood the idea I'm trying to present. Where you see willpower (?) as what makes a diet succeed or fail, I suspect something in the physiology, probably induced by type of food consumed (or environmental toxin...but that's another discussion).
If say I eat fifty pounds of spare ribs, OF COURSE I will gain weight. Likewise if I don't eat food for several weeks. Well, until a point. Indigenous populations (eg. Taubes cites the Pima people of Arizona) suffer obesity while having very little food on their reservation...basically they are / were semi-starving and yet anthropologists observe(d) obesity.
What I'm pointing out is that fat people who calorie restrict or up their exercise for the large part don't successfully keep the weight off. IOW they are *compelled* to either eat more or conserve energy by something physiologically happening in their body which responds as if in a state of semi-starvation.
Maybe you consider that as an exceptional case? My understanding is that is may be quite prevalent in modern societies.
Yeah, calories aren't bad science, they're just a fact. What I'm calling "questionable" or "misapplied" science is the idea that calorie under/over consumption is the driving cause of weight loss/gain for obese people. And possibly overweight people...though I think more research is needed to clarify what precisely is going on.I'll accept that additional measures can adjust the results slightly; and that there is small minority of people will illnesses which change the game; I reject the premise that calorie-based intake and expenditure is in any way "bad science" and suggest that anyone claiming such is trying to sell you something.
Last edited: